CITATION: Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership v. Chartis Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 3539
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526601
DATE: 20160530
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WALSH CONSTRUCTION/BONDFIELD PARTNERSHIP
Plaintiff
– and –
CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Defendant
Faren Bogach, for Walsh, Plaintiff
Sharon C. Vogel and Soizic Reynal de St. Michel, for Chartis, Defendant
HEARD: Submissions in Writing
r.f. goldstein j.
[1] On April 26, 2016 I granted judgment to Walsh. I ordered that the proceeding be referred to Master Albert to be heard with the other actions arising from the Women’s College Hospital project, or after them, as she in her discretion decides. See: Walsh Construction/Bondfield Parnership v. Chartis Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 2793.
[2] Walsh now seeks costs in the amount of $17,000.00, although its costs outline indicates that its partial indemnity costs (including disbursements and HST) are actually $21,293.19. Walsh argues that its costs are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The issue was of great importance to Walsh and it achieved complete victory on the motion. Walsh argues that Chartis took steps that un-necessarily lengthened the proceeding.
[3] Chartis does not suggest that Walsh should not be awarded costs, but argues that the costs sought by Walsh are excessive (in fairness, it appears that Chartis assumed that Walsh would seek more than $20,000 in partial indemnity costs based on its original costs outline). Chartis rejects Walsh’s contention that it did anything that unnecessarily prolonged or complicated the proceeding. Chartis points to a similar motion involving similar facts, Salter Farrow Pilon Architects Inc. v. Thunder Bay Regional Hospital, 2007 CarswellOnt 1018 (Sup.Ct.). In that case, the court awarded $4,000.00 to a more junior counsel where almost $8,000.00 in costs was sought. Since the result in that case was similar to the result in this case, Chartis argues that $6,000.00 represents a reasonable costs award.
[4] Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure set out the relevant factors that a court should take into account in awarding costs. The over-arching principle is that a court should award costs that are fair and reasonable in the circumstances: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14579 (Ont.C.A.), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, [2004] O.J. No. 2643 (C.A.). The Divisional Court set out the key principles in some detail in Anderson v. St. Jude Medical Inc. (2006), 2006 CanLII 85158 (ON SCDC), 264 D.L.R. (4th) 557, 2006 CarswellOnt 710, [2006] O.J. No. 508 (Div.Ct.).
[5] In my view, the amount of $17,000 sought by Walsh is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This was an important motion for Walsh. The costs outline does not appear to be “padded”. I do not agree that Chartis took steps to unduly prolong or complicate the proceeding, but in the end that factor is not particularly relevant.
[6] In this case, I regard the reasonable expectation of the parties as a very important factor. I note that these are large and sophisticated parties. I also note that the costs outline prepared by Chartis very fairly set out that its own partial indemnity costs were $16,542.89. The costs sought by Walsh are almost identical to the partial indemnity costs incurred by Chartis. Under those circumstances, the amount of $17,000.00 is awarded to Walsh.
R.F. Goldstein J.
Released: May 30, 2016
CITATION: Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership v. Chartis Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 3539
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526601
DATE: 20160530
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WALSH CONSTRUCTION/BONDFIELD PARTNERSHIP
Plaintiff
– and –
CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Defendant
COSTS JUDGMENT
R.F. Goldstein J.